Do you now understand what I mean by long 90?
Yes, but still, I don’t see the L 90mm at this BR very often unless someone drags up the M26E4.
Why?
A M26 with a gun more powerful than a long 88. With APCR this bad boy would have like 400mm penetration with a 3.6kg tungsten-carbide penetrator. That is going to one shot a Ferdinand from 2km with the current damage of APCR rounds combined with the increased chance of ammo detonation.
Same story with the M48 BR or Cent Mk. III being lower than the T-54, when they should be the superior vehicle.
It’s a 8.3, everyone elses already shoot twice, it definitely needs a reload buff, I would say at best it goes down to 12.5 seconds aced, instead of 15 seconds. This thing also has ammos in the turret, most things it faced will have no issues getting past its turret cheek and the thing always blows up, hence the poor survivability. Unlike IS-7, the armor profile is twice as effective, the only thing it lacks is STAB. Also the T-10M like some IS-series, has an incredibly small ready rack, around 6 ammos before the reload timer turns in to KV-2’s with two dead crews in the turret?
As someone who has played it, definitely no.
Maybe before tanks like Leopard were 7.7 I would move it down to 8.0 back, but at today’s BR it plays much better for me.
You have powerful turret, you’re quite mobile for a heavy, gun is overall good, though you do have to account for a longer reload by using smoke, reverse, positioning and turret armour.
It’s a mean tank if you utilize your turret armour, unless someone pulls out HEAT ofc.
Reload buff would be nice, however there is no sense moving the thing down with current BR’s.
Maybe with decompression you could move it down, but actually good decompression is unlikely to happen.
One more tank I cant see being totally fine at it’s BR is T-64A.
I understand it will be a beast when put back at 9.0, but it’s almost every way worse than T-72A, doesnt even have any good UFP armour, smokes which are a safe card against thermals you will have to fight.
It’s just another case of vehicle being bad for it’s BR but way too good for a BR lower.
Same thing when IS-2 was 6.0.
No, but ive had it done to me more times than i can fuckin count. Guess that is the downside of paying $200 a month for actually good internet.
I haven’t played the T-64A much due to the frequency of uptiers to 10.3, but I do played the T-64B and it was a beast in its respective br once you got the BV upgrades and 3BM42. The T-64A has 180mm composite turret cheek, when hull down it is pretty much near impossible to kill, ain’t it has the same turret protection as T-72B 1989 without the ERA? The hull is so shit though lol
Neither T-64A or T-64B have protection of T-72B, any of them.
I never questioned that. However you said the T32 90mm had APDS and HEAT while it doesn’t. It’s complete ass in an uptier. That was my point.
M48* the early Patton.
And I already corrected myself on the APDS.
In the post in question you said they (T32E1, …) don’t need to balanced because of their op armor and guns. I told you the guns aren’t op and you told me the 90mm (of the T32E1) had HEAT which it doesn’t. The long 90mm is a bad gun at 7.7 that was my point I have no idea how you got the M48 gun into this.
They are both 90mm’s
Yes they are the same caliber but they are different guns still.
Are they the same gun? Both are 75mm:
The long 90mm isn’t, but its armor is fair enough to take some hits, and has a decent crew. While the “Short” 90mm has better ammo, at the cost of armor.
More discussions please, so this gets Gaijin’s attention
1 Like
but its armor is fair enough to take some hits
That’s where I have to disagree. Nobody complains that the KV-1, B1 ter, Jumbo, Panther, any 6.7 except the IS-2, … are strong in a full downtier. All of those still have very usable armor in an uptier. The 7.7 heavies however can’t rely on their armor even in a full downtier and on top of having bad armor have a reload 3-5 times as much as their enemies. They have to play like oversized tank destroyer with none of the strengths of an actual TD. So to make them usefull again they need a reload buff to be viable again.
While the “Short” 90mm has better ammo, at the cost of armor.
Tanks with the short 90 all reload much faster and have better mobility.
Personally, I prefer realistic performance over balance. Not all vehicles are created equal. Some are better than others. Even at the same BR. If there is a historical reason for a modification, great. Modifying stuff purely for “balance”, please don’t.
2 Likes
As you would with any other “Smaller” cased shell. The early 90mm your talking about the “long” has a bigger casing and more propellant, specifically designed to sit back, snipe, and be able to tank hits, as it’s further back in a spearhead. The reason for this being the failure of the German pushing in WWII with the Blitzkrieg, also using a spearhead tactic, but in a different configuration, putting the infantry and light support in the front to take out any closing threats, while the heavier tanks with longer range guns sit in a position further back, which allows supporting fire, and the mobilization of the early “MBT’s” of the era, and not be K/O’d on their way to support infantry and other light tanks.
The IS-2 has decent armor, and a 122mm gun, one that rivals the KT and Tiger I E/H1’s 88mm KwK. Its armor isn’t great, and its mobility isn’t either, but can effectively K/O any tank on the battlefield.
Not all vehicles are created equal.
They should be equal in capability in game.
Personally, I prefer realistic performance over balance.
Gaijin doesn’t that’s why these heavies suffer from more modern vehicles getting to farm these slow reloading tanks.
Also makes no sense how the IS-3 takes 26s to reload but the IS-4 with a huge turret in comparison takes 27s. It’s all due to balance.
We’re not touching armor or anything else that’s hard value. It’s merely changing the loader to a stronger, more experienced one that can reload faster. Nothing severely ahistorical about this. If they were to be placed realistically the 6.7s would be much worse off.